On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:53:05 am Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >> Having just seen Guido's latest post (i.e. he would omit the
> >> feature entirely if given the chance to redo the loop syntax and
> >> he's against adding a syntax warning), I'd suggest proposing a
> >> "Rejected PEP for the record" (with a link to Guido's post as the
> >> rejection).
> >
> > Would an entry in PEP 3099 suffice?
>> With links to Steven's summary and Guido's post? That would make
> sense (and save anyone the effort of formatting a PEP).
I would be happy with that.
--
Steven D'Aprano